Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1, 13, 14 and 19 are related. Amendment No. 19 is consequential on No. 1. Amendments Nos. 1, 13, 14 and 19 may be discussed together by agreement.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 20, to delete “31 March 2023” and substitute “30 April 2023”.

Amendment No. 1 is a no-brainer. We are in Ireland, where the winter months are very cold. Unfortunately, that cold weather can extend the whole way to April. Instead of the deadline being 31 March 2023, we propose 30 April 2023. We all remember what happened to an Aldi store in Tallaght in the snow. That was in April. I raise this to remind people that it can be bitterly cold in Ireland during those months.

Amendment No. 2 seeks security for tenants and especially for the many Traveller families who live in Traveller-specific accommodation provided by local authorities.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry to interrupt Senator Flynn but amendment No. 2 is not in this group.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is grand.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is welcome to talk to the grouping and to amendment No. 1.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry; I am a little bit thrown off.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is no problem.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Which amendments are in the group?

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It comprises Nos. 1, 13, 14 and 19.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I come in on amendments Nos. 13 and 14?

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will come back in afterwards.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Warfield wants to contribute. Senator Flynn can then re-enter the debate.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will take this opportunity to speak on amendments Nos. 13 and 14. We want to see people get a little more protection during the winter months and the timeframe set out by the Bill. The longer a tenancy is, the longer the notice-to-quit period. There are two notice-to-quit periods, one of 196 days and one of 224 days, depending on whether someone has been a tenant for less than or more than seven years. For someone who gets a notice on 2 November, the 196 days will last until the end of the winter period so the tenant gets no protection whatsoever from this Bill while others get extra protections into May or even June. Our amendments, Nos. 13 and 14, do not seek to extend the emergency period but give people who get a notice to quit just before or just after the introduction of this Bill a little bit of extra time because they will struggle to find somewhere within that six-month period. We believe this extra time would be reasonable.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Senator Flynn wish to speak again before we call on the Minister of State?

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will just say that the decision to extend the timeframe is a no-brainer.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak to amendments Nos. 1, 13, 14 and 19. I cannot accept amendment No. 1, which proposes to push out the expiry date of the winter emergency period to the end of April 2023 to help tenants in receipt of relevant tenancy terminations affected by this Bill. As was outlined earlier on Second Stage, this Bill was carefully calibrated to balance the rights of tenants and landlords. Tenants facing a notice of termination will receive protection under this Bill, allowing them to stay in situover the winter emergency period, thereby allowing time for housing supply to increase. While we are interfering with landlords' constitutional property rights, this interference is limited and applies for a short period of time. The Bill seeks to reduce the burden on homelessness services and the pressure on tenants and the residential tenancies market during the coming winter months. The increasing numbers of people experiencing homelessness and significant inward migration are combining to create significant difficulties in the provision of emergency accommodation. This is placing additional pressure on homelessness services as we enter the winter period, when capacity constraints are extremely tight for emergency accommodation and housing providers generally.

The Bill is introduced as an emergency measure for this winter period, which ceases at the end of March, only. The table in section 2(3) of the Bill sets out how the deferment of relevant tenancy terminations will operate. As can be seen, the deferment dates operate in a staggered fashion beyond the winter period and until 18 June 2023 to ensure there is no cliff edge at the end of the period, which would put unimaginable pressure on the private rental market and homelessness services. The timing operates so as to provide proportionally greater protection to those tenants with the shortest termination periods. The aim is to provide additional time to those most in need of extra time to secure alternative accommodation. Taking into account the advice of the Attorney General, this Bill is designed to enhance tenancy protections over the winter period and is careful to manage the demand in the rental market over the months immediately afterwards until 18 June 2023. I cannot accept the Senator's amendment.

I cannot accept amendment No. 13, which proposes to push out the deferred termination date that applies for tenancies of not less than one year but less than seven years with a specified termination date falling during the period from the enactment of the Bill to the end of January from 15 April 2023 to 1 May 2023, nor can I accept amendment No. 14, which proposes to push out from 1 April 2023 to 1 May 2023 the deferred termination date that applies for tenancies of not less than seven years with a specified termination date falling during February or March. This emergency Bill has been carefully drafted to limit its interference with the constitutionally-protected property rights of landlords. As I have said, this Bill has been carefully calibrated to balance the rights of tenants and landlords. The table in section 2(3) of the Bill sets out how the deferment of relevant tenancy terminations will operate. As can be seen, the deferment dates operate in a staggered fashion beyond the winter period and until 18 June 2023 to ensure there is no cliff edge at the end of the period, which would put unimaginable pressure on the private rental market and homelessness services. Taking into account the advice of the Attorney General, this Bill is designed to enhance tenancy protections over the winter period and is careful to manage the demand in the rental market over the months immediately afterwards until 18 June 2023. I cannot accept the Senators' amendments Nos. 13 and 14.

I cannot accept amendment No. 19 which, as a consequential amendment to amendment No. 1, proposes to amend the Title of the Bill to reflect the pushing out of the expiry date of the winter emergency period from 31 March to the end of April.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “(3) In this Act—

(a) references to landlord shall be construed as including references to housing authority and local authority within the meaning of the Housing Acts 1966 to 2015,

(b) references to tenant shall be construed as including references to local authority tenant within such meaning, and

(c) references to tenancy shall be construed as including references to local authority tenancy within such meaning.”.

Amendment No. 2 seeks to ensure that eviction bans are extended to all tenants.We are trying to ensure that those renting from local authorities are also protected. Will the Minister of State clarify whether local authority tenants are also protected under this Bill? As he knows, many Traveller families live in specific Traveller accommodation under local authorities. Census 2016 showed that 1,800 of these families rented from private landlords and 4,000 lived in local authority accommodation. Does this Bill protect these families and if it does not, what can the Minister of State do to protect them?

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If there are no other interventions, does the Minister of State want to respond?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot accept amendment No. 2. This Bill and the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2015 do not cover local authority housing apart from those where cost rental tenancies are in place. That said, I know tenancy terminations from local authority housing are rare and I have no reason to think local authorities will move forward with terminations over the winter months. Given that the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, indicated in the Dáil last night that he will consider issuing a circular to local authorities on this issue, and the fact that this is emergency legislation, it would not be appropriate to cover local authorities in this Bill. However, I note the points made by Senator Flynn in relation to the Traveller community. Certainly, in relation to Traveller-specific accommodation, I am aware that all local authorities have designated wraparound facilities for Traveller communities. As was stated, evictions from local authority housing are rare and are not covered in this Bill.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In my experience, local authority housing evictions are not very rare. Even as we speak, there are many Traveller families being evicted. This is the harsh reality for Travellers. I do not mean to sound in any way disrespectful to the Minister of State and it is not personally meant, but I am here and I know exactly what I am talking about. The Civil Engagement Group worked really hard over the last week with the Irish Traveller Movement. We did not do it by ourselves but worked alongside other organisations to protect Travellers with this eviction Bill. Unfortunately, we are not holding the State to account. Nobody is being held to account for the situation Travellers are in and that is the harsh reality. The amendments I put forward, and those of the Civil Engagement group, are not being accepted. It is genuine State discrimination. Members of this House and the Dáil should be ashamed of themselves for not protecting the most vulnerable people in Irish society when it comes to accommodation. Once again we are left behind but I will keep standing up and speaking up in this House because I do not have a choice. The Minister says that accommodation under local authorities is secure. Local authorities are not held to account. What we could have done, and what was the right thing to do, was to name it and to accept amendment No. 2 in order to protect members of the Traveller community during the winter. Again, we are just thrown aside and it is all fine because nobody is held to account. I will be up to speak on our next amendment as well.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I absolutely acknowledge the points the Senator makes on the specific vulnerability of Traveller families regarding housing and how disproportionately they are affected by homelessness. As I have said, however, local authority housing is not covered under this Bill. Quite a number of Traveller families are renting in the private market, or through HAP or RAS, and they have protections there. Similarly, regarding Traveller-specific accommodation, local authorities have services in place to support tenancy and stability among families. If it is of help, I will discuss this correspondence with the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, and ask that the circular he is going to issue to local authorities be mindful of the specific vulnerability of Traveller families.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 3 is deemed out of order as it is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 4, 6 to 12, inclusive, and 18 are related. Amendments Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendment No. 6. Amendments Nos. 4, 6 to 12, inclusive, and 18 may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Rebecca Moynihan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, after line 31, to insert the following:

“Grounds for termination by landlord

2. The Act of 2004 is amended—

(a) in the Table to section 34—

(i) by deleting paragraph 3, and

(ii) in paragraph 5, by substituting “, no reasonable measures can be taken to maintain the dwelling fit for human habitation during the refurbishment or renovation” for “in a way which requires the dwelling to be vacated for that purpose”,

and

(b) in section 35 by the substitution of the following for subsection (4):

“(4) In paragraph 4 of the Table the reference to a member of the landlord’s family is a reference to—

(a) a spouse or civil partner of the landlord, or

(b) a child (including a stepchild, foster child or adopted child) of the landlord.”.”.

I will speak to the grouping. I am not going to press this amendment massively. The more important one is around the tenant in situscheme and having the notice served on a local authority as well. We have reflected what is in place in France where, essentially, if a tenant is being evicted the property is offered at market value to the tenant. There are much stronger tenant rights in other European countries where renting has not been normalised exactly but they have certainly made conditions better for renters.

This amendment relates to the wider Residential Tenancies (Tenants' Rights) Bill, which we introduced in 2021 in the Dáil and is now at Second Stage. We constantly make the point that we need to restrict the criteria or grounds for eviction, for example by removing the fact that family members are moving in or the sale of a property as grounds for eviction. We submitted this amendment to make the political point that we still believe this and want to see it happen. It is the responsibility of the Government to do this; otherwise, we will be faced with these situations every winter and we will see homeless services being overwhelmed. It will give people who rent, including those who are renting into their 30s, 40s and 50s, long-term security of tenure. We want to see a move to a situation where we balance the rights of people who rent in this country and we give renters more rights than they currently have. I have spoken to the amendment but I am not going to press it.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I call the speakers who are offering, I want to briefly welcome our young people to the Gallery. It is good to have them and their teachers here.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To clarify, does this grouping consist of amendments Nos. 6 to 12, inclusive?

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, and amendment No. 4 is also included.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I assume amendment No. 5 has been ruled out of order because the latter part of Senator Moynihan's amendment relates to a dispute on the value of the property being referred to the board, rather than to the substance of the original point raised during our Second Stage speeches. Can the Minister of State confirm that some mechanism will be put in place so that the RTB can notify the local authority when a termination notice is being issued to a HAP tenant? That is important and the closing of that circle has to be put in place. It is not necessarily vital that it is in the thrust of the Bill but it has to happen in the background. Without it, local authorities will essentially be shooting in the dark without knowing which tenants have been given notice of termination. They will be trying to effect an acquisition of a tenant in situ policy without knowing exactly which tenancies have received those notices.I would like some assurance that this will happen in the background because it is a necessity. I appreciate that amendment No. 5 has been ruled out of order. I believe that was based on the latter part of the amendment, not the substantive point Senator Moynihan was trying to make.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak to amendment No. 9. The Government promised to introduce no-fault evictions. When a person signs a tenancy agreement there is usually an understanding that there are X amount of people in Y number of rooms. Family size can change. A person can have a partner or children, adult children can move home and so on. The overcrowding provision is where a landlord can issue a notice to quit if the property no longer meets the needs of the household. This particularly disadvantages families with large numbers of children, including Traveller and Roma families and families who have been waiting a long time for social housing. If we allow larger families to be evicted, they are the folks who end up spending the longest periods in emergency accommodation, so much so that in 2020 the Minister gave local authorities the power to buy one-bedroom and four-bedroom vacant properties in order to move single people and large families out of emergency accommodation. If a large family ends up in emergency accommodation, it takes a very long time to find suitable accommodation for them. Why are we subjecting families to this?

My other concern is that this provision could become a loophole for a small number of landlords who see that they need a loophole. If landlords cannot evict tenants because they want to sell the house, they could evict them for overcrowding, even if the household has one person too many. I appeal to the Government to support amendment No. 9. The small provision in the Bill could result in large families being evicted into homelessness or trapped in homelessness for long periods of time, for which there is evidence.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Vincent P. Martin has been waiting patiently.

Vincent P Martin (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Previous speakers have, correctly, made reference to "eviction", which is an emotive term. It is also draconian but, at the end of the day, that is what we are talking about. With regard to the legislation, in the many years in which it has made judgments, the RTB has never used the word "eviction". It orders what is called a "termination of tenancy" and may order that the tenants hereby vacate the dwelling by a certain date. If the tenant does not do so, the landlord goes to the court. Very foolish landlords could take the law into their own hands but, apart from disturbing the pre-eminent position of the family home, the place of repose, they would, I imagine, face significant damages. Language is important, as are people's passion and concern. Politicians use the word "eviction" and the RTB shies away from using that word, which is not in the principal Act. It is an order of termination of tenancy. It causes shock and people are dumbfounded if they receive a notice of termination.

The Seanad is very good at devoting time to matters. While this is not for today and this emergency legislation, at some later date, perhaps the Seanad should consider how to get rid of the terms "eviction" and "notice of termination". I believe there is a way of doing this because I have thought about it for some time. In future, when a landlord is buying a property, perhaps they could be told in advance that they will never get it back on the grounds of requiring it for a family member or to sell it. This is what happens in other countries. In other countries, there are also fewer disputes over deposits because the property is returned completely empty whenever it becomes available. There is no hassle about aspects of furnishings being damaged and so on. People rent the property empty and furnish it themselves. Other countries also have a deposit retention system. That is a discussion for another day. One way of eliminating the term "notice of termination" to vacate the property, or dwelling as it is described in the Act, and the word "eviction" is to start afresh. The only way that would be constitutionally bullet-proof and that property owners' rights would be affected would be if they entered and bought a property knowing explicitly that they would never get it back and the property would just be something for a gain. We are where we are today, however. This is an emergency response to an emergency situation. I agree with the comments of the Minister of State.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to address a few of the amendments. To respond to the Senator's comments, what would we call it if it was not called eviction? Would we call it "putting people out"? Changing the name would not mean it is not happening, unless it is stopped - full stop.

Amendment No. 8 removes all but the more serious grounds for eviction. Under the current provisions, a tenant could be evicted for painting a wall or for doing something in a house that was not approved by the landlord. A landlord could look for any old excuse to evict people. The amendment would deal with that and tenants could only be evicted if they commit criminal damage to the home.

Senator Warfield and I will call a vote on amendment No. 9 if it is not accepted. Given that so many people are living in emergency accommodation, we know that in many cases people have to couch-surf with friends. Travellers in Cork and Kerry have done a lot of work on this. We know the figures. Thousands of Travellers and people from other marginalised communities are couch-surfing. We must protect those people and amendment No. 9 seeks to do this.

Overcrowding and couch-surfing are not the answer either, as we all know. It is important for quality of life that people do not do that but with the housing emergency, it happens. We are genuinely not living in the real world if we think people do not have other people staying in their houses. I was working with two men from Ballyfermot recently who were being evicted. One was a member of the Traveller community. They have nowhere to go and no protection. They are just being put out by their landlord. These two men are now couch-surfing. We must look after these people and amendment No. 9 seeks to do this.

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 seek to ensure that no landlord can use pre-existing problems to evict people. I have already given the example of a tenant who paints a wall.

We need to keep reminding ourselves that this is emergency legislation. We are not saying that amendment No. 12 would apply to everybody but it also seeks to protect people. The Civil Engagement Group looked at these amendments through the lens of human rights and equality and with NGOs and other organisations. I will keep going back to this point. This amendments are not the voices of Senators Eileen Flynn, Lynn Ruane, Alice-Mary Higgins and Frances Black.These amendments are the voices of the people, like all our amendments. The Government should accept the amendments we put forward not for us personally but for people.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, Senators raised a number of points around the RTB and notifying local authorities. The point is made well about tenants in situ. I will discuss that further with the Minister. Senator Martin raised some interesting points too on the term "eviction". That is for another day.

Am I correct that Senator Moynihan is withdrawing amendments Nos. 4 and 7 so I am speaking to No. 6?

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The grouping is amendments Nos. 4, 6 to 12, inclusive and 18.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On amendment No. 4, this is an emergency Bill designed to apply in respect of winter emergency period only. Its provisions are carefully drafted to limit its interference with constitutionally protected property rights of landlords. On the landlord's right to terminate a tenancy on the ground that he or she intends to sell the property, I wish to clarify for the House that outside the winter emergency period there is no general provision in the Residential Tenancies Act to prohibit a landlord from selling his or her property with a tenant in situ. However, it is recognised that the landlord is likely to realise a lower sale price for a property sold without vacant possession. Since September 2016, the Tyrrelstown amendment provides that where a landlord proposes to sell ten or more units in a single development at the same time, the sale is subject to the existing tenants remaining in situother than in exceptional circumstances. The Tyrrelstown amendment was carefully drafted to promote security of tenure in the interest of the common social good. The provision strikes a balance between landlords' right to sell their property and achieve a fair return on investment and a tenant's right to security of tenure. Any proposal to remove the landlord's right to terminate a tenancy in a case of every rental property being sold would carry with it the risk of constitutional challenge. Successive Governments have not provided a legal requirement that the sale of rental properties on the basis of tenants remaining in situtaking into account legal risks involved.

The Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2019 enhanced tenancy protections to provide that where a landlord terminates a tenancy because he or she intends to sell a property, he or she must enter into a contract for sale within nine months of the termination date and if not, must offer to re-let to a former tenant.

Amendment No. 4 also proposes to amend the wording of the termination ground under paragraph 5 of the table to section 34 relating to the substantial refurbishment or renovation of the rental dwelling. The Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2019 significantly strengthened the protections around the grounds for termination of a tenancy particularly in respect of paragraph 5. Where the landlord intends to substantially refurbish or renovate a rental dwelling in a way that requires a dwelling to be vacated for the purpose, a notice of termination must contain or be accompanied in writing by a statement specifying the nature of the intended works and in the case where planning permission has been obtained, a copy of the planning permission must be attached to the notice or a statement that planning permission is not required and specifying the name of the contractor, if any, employed to carry out intended works and the dates on which the intended works are to be carried out and the proposed duration of the period in which those works are to be carried out and that the landlord is required to offer to the tenant a tenancy of the dwelling and the dwelling becomes available for re-letting by reason of the completion of the works of refurbishment or renovation. In addition, the notice of termination must contain or be accompanied by a certificate in writing of a registered professional within the meaning of the Building Control Act 2007 stating that the proposed refurbishment or renovation works would pose a risk to the health or safety of occupants of the dwelling concerned and should not proceed while the dwelling is occupied. Such a risk is likely to exist for such a period as is specified in the certificate, which will not be less than three weeks.

These substantial changes were made in 2019 to strengthen enforcement of tenancy termination protections while respecting landlords' constitutional rights regarding their property. Owners of rental properties need to be sure that the property rights are protected under the Constitution. We need to safeguard investment in the rental sector.

Amendment No. 4 also proposes to amendment section 35 of the 2004 Act. While the purpose of the winter emergency period is to assist renters who are finding it difficult to source accommodation in the constrained rental market in the short term, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to permanently amend the definition of "family member" to prevent a landlord from terminating a tenancy to enable occupation of their property by a family member such as a grandchild, parent, grandparent, step-parent, parent-in-law, brother, sister, nephew or niece of the landlord as the Act currently provides. I cannot accept this proposed amendment to the 2004 Act. It is reasonable to expect that the personal circumstances of many landlords with one or two rental properties might well give rise to a need to provide a home for a family member at some stage. The investment in the rental sector needs to be safeguarded and measures such as those proposed by the Senators would lead to a loss of units from the sector.

I cannot accept amendment No. 6 as I outlined earlier. The Bill has been carefully calibrated to balance both the rights of tenants and landlords. Tenants facing a notice of termination will receive protection under the Bill to remain in situover the winter emergency period allowing time for housing supply to increase over that period. While we are interfering with landlords' constitutional property rights, this interference is made in a limited manner and applies for a short period. The interference is also carefully calibrated to affect certain tenancy terminations only. To provide a requisite balance, exceptions are provided to the application of this law. The deferment of tenancy termination dates will not apply where there has been a breach of tenancy obligations or where the landlord cites as a ground of notice of termination breach of the tenant obligations, including rent arrears or that the dwelling no longer suits the accommodation needs of the tenants having regard to bed spaces and the size of the household. We need to safeguard landlords rights in such cases where tenancy termination might be a necessary step to protect their property and livelihood.

The Senators propose to remove breach of tenant obligations as a legitimate justification altogether. The reality is that tenants have a number of obligations that must be met under section 16 of the Residential Tenancies Act, which, if not met could result in significant costs such as increased insurance or extensive repairs to the landlord. For those tenants who are struggling to meet their obligations to pay rent, there are supports available as I outlined on Second Stage, including rent supplement, supplementary welfare allowance and the additional needs payments from the Department of Social Protection. There are supports in place to help tenants to meet their obligations and the Government will not be found wanting when it comes to protection of the most vulnerable.

I cannot accept amendment No. 7. I understand the motivation of Senators in trying to disapply the protections under the Bill only where there is clear breach of tenant obligations. Tenants have a number of obligations that must be met under section 16 of the Residential Tenancies Act, which if not met by a tenant could result in significant costs such as increased insurance or extensive repairs to the landlord. The tenant obligation to pay rent is key to the operation of the rental market. I readily accept that some tenants are struggling to meet their obligations to pay rent and again wish to stress that there are supports to help. From 1 August 2020, the Government introduced permanent enhancements to tenancy protections for those in rent arrears. New procedures require landlords to serve both the RTB and the tenant with both a 28-day warning notice seeking payment of rent arrears and any related notice of termination. Upon receipt of the notice, the RTB acknowledges receipt from the landlord and the tenant and provides information to the tenant to enable him or her to get advice from MABS and offers assistance to the tenant in obtaining this advice. Any notice of termination grounded on rent arrears must be copied to the RTB and will be invalid if not so copied, and notice of termination grounded in rent arrears can only be served by landlords on the condition that a written rent arrears warning was given to the tenant and the RTB and the arrears were not paid within 28 days following receipt of the warning by the tenant or the or RTB, whichever occurs later. The aim is to ensure that early action is taken to address rent arrears to the benefit of both tenant and landlord. Again, the Government is acutely aware of the pressure on tenants and is keen to try and put in place what helps that are needed.

I cannot accept amendment No. 8 but I again understand the motivation of Senators in trying to restrict the breach of obligations in respect of which the protections under this Bill shall not apply. The amendment seeks the Bill's protection to apply unless there is damage to the property over and above the normal wear and tear, antisocial behaviour by the tenant or visitors to their dwelling. The reality is that tenants have a number of obligations that must be met under section 16 of the Residential Tenancies Act. Apart from tenant obligations referred to by the Senators in their amendment, tenants are obliged to pay rent, not engage in actions that would invalidate the landlord’s insurance policy on the property, not unlawfully sublet the property and, inter alia,not use the dwelling or cause the dwelling to be used for any purpose other than as a dwelling without the written consent of the landlord. As I have said, there are a number of obligations that if not met by the tenant could result in significant cost to the landlord.For those tenants who are struggling, again, supports are available.

I cannot accept amendment No. 9, although I understand the sentiments behind it. The Government has framed the Bill in line with the advice of the Attorney General and we believe we have struck a fair and defensible balance between the rights of tenants and landlords. Overcrowding of a rental property could have significant ramifications for a landlord. A landlord has obligations to his or her tenants and also to his or her neighbours to enforce tenant obligations as may be required.

Since quarter 2 of 2019, notices of termination served on the basis that the dwelling is no longer suitable to the accommodation needs of the tenants have represented just 2% of all notices of termination copied to the RTB. Landlords must also comply with the Housing Act 1966, whereby a local authority may direct a landlord to reduce the number of occupants of the property to a safe level should a tenancy agreement be breached and the resulting overcrowding may pose health and public safety risks.

Section 63 of the Housing Act 1966 deals with overcrowding and, inter alia,limits the number of people who can occupy the same bedroom. Where a landlord seeks to end a tenancy on this ground, the notice of termination must specify the number of bed spaces and the reason the property is no longer suitable with regard to the bed spaces and the household composition. The RTB dispute resolution service will be available as usual over the winter emergency period to assist where issues arise in regard to such terminations.

I cannot accept amendment No. 10. I am not entirely sure I understand its intent but it seems to introduce a qualifier with regard to the exceptions under section 2(2) on deferment provisions. To be clear, section 2 applies to notices of termination served on or before the date on which the Bill is enacted. The exceptions under section 2(2) also apply to notices of termination served on or before the Bill is enacted. There is a need for the exceptions under section 2(2) to ensure the Bill will provide the necessary balance in its tenancy protections, again for both tenants and landlords.

Similarly, I am not entirely sure what the intent of amendment No. 10, which I cannot accept, is but it seems to introduce a qualifier with regard to exceptions under section 2(2) to deferment provisions.

Amendment No. 11 appears to be similar to amendment No. 10 but restricts its application to cases of overcrowding, which we have discussed. To be clear, I reiterate section 2 applies to notices of termination served on or before the date on which the Bill is enacted. The exceptions under section 2(2) also apply to notices of termination served on or before the date on which the Bill is enacted. There is a need for the exceptions under section 2(2) to ensure the Bill will provide the necessary balance for tenancy protections between tenants and landlords. I think the intent of the amendment is to allow tenants who live in overcrowded rented dwellings to avail of the protections under the Bill over the winter. Again, I cannot accept amendment No. 11, for the reasons discussed in respect of amendment No. 9. It would not be safe for tenants or, potentially, their neighbours.

I cannot accept amendment No. 12, which seeks to allow a tenant who does not pay rent to avail of the protections over the winter. The tenant obligation to pay rent is a key to the operation of the rental market. I readily accept that some tenants are struggling to meet their obligations to pay rent and I reiterate that supports are available to help them, which I have outlined.

On 1 August 2020, the Government introduced new permanent enhancements to tenancy protection for those in rent arrears. The new procedures require landlords to serve both the RTB and the tenant with a 28-day warning notice seeking payment of arrears also related to notice of termination. On receipt of the warning notice, the RTB will acknowledge its receipt to the landlord and tenant and provide information to the tenant to enable him or her to get advice from the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, and offer assistance to the tenant in regard to this advice. Any notice of termination grounded in rent arrears must be copied to the RTB and will be invalid if not so copied. A notice of termination grounded on rent arrears can be served by a landlord only on the condition that a written rent arrears warning was given to both the tenant and the RTB, and the arrears were not paid within 28 days of receipt of the warning by the tenant or the RTB, specifically whichever occurs later. The aim is to ensure early action is taken to address rent arrears in the interests of both tenant and landlord.

I cannot accept amendment No. 18, a consequential amendment to the Title on foot of Labour Party amendments the Government does not accept.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On amendments Nos. 7 and 12, relating to the non-payment of rent as a ground for a termination notice, we are enabling that to continue given that, on the other side of every tenancy, there is a landlord who has obligations to his or her bank in regard to paying back loans. It is important to point out in this space that this was another item raised at our Oireachtas joint committee by the IPOA and the IPAV in respect of the process that applies where a tenant fails to pay rent, as the Minister of State outlined. The landlord has to notify the RTB of the intention and then, perhaps, after the 28 days have passed, he or she has to seek a determination from the RTB, but that is not the end of the process for the landlord. He or she might have to get a court decision to enable the enacting of the decision of the RTB. Throughout that process, which can take 12 months or longer, there is a landlord who, potentially, is without any sum coming into him or her which, obviously, is not right. We have to try to ensure, by some mechanism, that there can be a quick determination in some instances by the RTB where there is a failure to pay rent. Moreover, there should be a quick implementation of same by the courts system. It is not sustainable that a tenant would be allowed not to pay rent.

It is important to point out this applies to only a tiny number of people. It is not a widespread issue but rather applies to a small number of tenants who do not pay rent where the landlord has to take the actions I outlined. In those instances, there are those few landlords who are out of pocket and there has to be a better and quicker way to implement the decisions of the RTB where they have been made. Given we have this space at the moment, a kind of a holding pattern over the coming months, there is no reason the RTB cannot expedite cases where there a wilful withholding of rent.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not understand what the Minister of State does not get about amendments Nos. 10 and 11. They are so simple. As an example, if I live in rented accommodation and paint the walls after the landlord agrees that I can do that, the landlord could later use that as an excuse, even if it came out of my pocket, and say he or she never gave me permission to paint the walls. That is only an example but I could be evicted for that. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 seek to protect renters such that they cannot be evicted for, say, painting the walls, for which they had permission, just because the landlord does not want them in the house anymore. God help the poor landlords; they are really getting such a hard auld kicking with this ban.

This applies to the most vulnerable people in particular, such as members of the Travelling community, Roma people, Black people and other people of colour and single parents - the list goes on and on with any excuse to evict them. In one sense I am delighted I live in the real world, with the communities who are impacted most by this. It might have come to the landlord's attention that the tenants are members of the Travelling community or that they are a single parent and they might be evicted on those grounds, but the landlord might blame the eviction on something the tenant did the previous year.

I encourage the Minister of State to reconsider amendments Nos. 10 and 11 and accept them.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind the House that the objective is to ensure everyone has a secure, sustainable home-----

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is only some people-----

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Fitzpatrick without interruption.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We cannot say everybody. It is an inequality to say everybody when we are not including everybody. It is inequality. Do not say everybody. It is some people, not all. We are excluding the Travellers.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Flynn has had ample opportunity. I call Senator Fitzpatrick.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is really important that we remember that our intention is to ensure that everyone has a safe and secure home. I reject the presentation that this legislation seeks to discriminate against any citizen.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does. It is not like saying a name or anything.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No interruptions. Senator Fitzpatrick has a right to put her case.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She should name it and say it for how it is.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Shouting is not the way.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We cannot sustain this. We are not outside on the back of a lorry.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I reject the assertion that the legislation discriminates against any citizen; it does not. It is important that we do not have a falsehood go out of this House asserting that the legislation is discriminating against any individual or group in society.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not. The legislation does not discriminate against any individual in society. The legislation treats all renters and all citizens equally. I want to raise the issue of withholding of rent. It is important that the legislation does not discriminate against any member of society. It is important that we remember that small landlords are citizens as well. I want to share with the Minister of State a real-life example of a landlord and his experience with a tenant withholding rent. This was a man in his 60s who entered into a personal relationship with somebody else, moved out of his home and rented that home. He did so legitimately, registered the property, charged a fair market rent and was happy to make his home available to somebody else on a fully legitimate rental basis. The personal relationship broke down and he also was diagnosed with a terminal illness. He needed to move back into his home and served notice. In the interim the tenant had been withholding rent over a prolonged period and had been advertising the property on Airbnb, generating many multiples of the rent in income from Airbnb. The matter went to the RTB. The RTB took 12 months and only after my intervention did we start to get some satisfaction. That was a man who had done the good thing in making his home available on a rental basis. He did not need it and saw that there was a need there. He had maintained the property, provided it at a fair rent and complied with all of the regulations. He became ill and needed his home back, and still complied with all of the regulations, even though he had his obligations to pay a mortgage on that property in the absence of receiving a rent and, at the same time, witnessing the abuse of his property, and it being rented out for many multiples of the rent he was charging. That is a real-life example. The RTB should not have taken as long as it did to resolve that issue. It should not have needed a public representative to get involved. The RTB needs to step up its act for tenants and for landlords. We need to ensure that we have a secure, sustainable rental market.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I dealt with a similar case to the Senator.

Vincent P Martin (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Personal rights are covered in the Constitution as fundamental rights; they may not be absolute rights. Article 40.1 of the Constitution provides that everyone is equal before the law and the State cannot unjustly, unreasonably or arbitrarily discriminate between two citizens. If the Houses of the Oireachtas were to enact legislation that would do that, it would be exposed to a constitutional challenge. I do not believe the legislation as proposed is in breach of the Constitution. If I did, I would not support it. The Minister of State is acting on good advice from the constitutional officer advising the Government, the Attorney General.

I would like much greater protections in the longer term for tenants. People could be watching this debate today and receive a notice of termination in the post. It is important that those who have received that news realise that we are legislating today and taking all Stages of the Bill, which has been through the Dáil. Most important, they should know that there are organisations out there to protect tenants. Threshold does excellent work. They are advocates for tenants. It is not a triple lock but there is a triple protection under law for tenants. The first is that if the tenant feels they received a notice of termination that may not have been served in accordance with law, they can seek an adjudication hearing, which is a private hearing. Following that, if either party is not satisfied with the outcome of the determination order of the adjudication, it is open to either party to have an appeal in the form of a tribunal hearing. They can insist on an oral hearing at that stage. I would much prefer to have more oral hearings and less use of Zoom because it is such a fundamental issue about someone's home. The tribunal hearing is a de novohearing and it is binding. In a sense it is the end of the road but not in respect of a point of law or procedural challenge. There is an opportunity to go to the High Court. That is the third option.

I encourage people who feel they have been treated unfairly to seek expert advice. It is a relatively informal process. The RTB is not tooled up with lots of lawyers. Threshold are excellent advocates. People are also entitled to an interpreter if they are from a different country and English might not be their first language. From my experience of the RTB, landlords will say it is a pro-tenant place and they do not get a fair hearing and tenants will say it is a bit pro-landlord. From my first-hand experience, they treat everyone with the utmost dignity and respect. I hope that will continue. There is so much at stake here. It is such a fundamental point. I know we have all said that this morning. It is a person's home, a place of repose and peace. At the end of a hard day's work or school when the family comes home, they want stability and certainty.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is not a reference to any individual, before we proceed but we are talking about balancing rights here. We also need to balance the need to pass the legislation to protect rights with the desire to speak. If Senators could strike that balance it would be helpful. That is not directed at Senator Moynihan, who is next. It is just a general comment.

Rebecca Moynihan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. I fully take on board Senator Fitzpatrick's remarks about people who are deliberately not complying. That is fair enough. The point Senator Flynn is trying to make is that from her experience in the community she is in, this is then often used as an excuse by some landlords.It is only right that the Senator is allowed to express that.

I know the Leas-Chathaoirleach did not mean it but I will ask him to withdraw a comment. When he was trying to quiet the room, he made a comment about the back of a lorry.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have no difficulty with that.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 5 has been ruled out of order as involving a potential charge on the Revenue.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, to delete lines 12 to 16.

Rebecca Moynihan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 4, to delete lines 13 to 16 and substitute the following: “(a) the notice of termination cites as a reason for the termination concerned a ground specified in paragraph 1 or 1A of the Table to section 34 of the Act of 2004,

(b) in a case of failure by the tenant to pay an amount of rent due, the tenant fails to show to the satisfaction of the Board that he or she has engaged with the Money Advice and Budgeting Service with a view to developing a plan for the management, avoidance, reduction and discharge of the tenant’s debts, and in relation to money management generally, and

(c) any condition specified in the paragraph concerned of the Table has been satisfied.”.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 4, line 14, after “under” to insert “paragraphs (f) and (h) of”.

Rebecca Moynihan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 4, line 16, to delete “paragraph 1, 1A or 2” and substitute “paragraph 1 or 1A”.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the vote on amendment No. 9, Senators Ruane and Warfield neglected to vote on that occasion. We have rectified the record accordingly. We move now to amendment No. 10.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 4, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

“(3) Subsection (2) shall not apply in cases where non-compliance with relevant obligations was previously established and no notice was

subsequently issued in respect of that non-compliance before the date of the passing of this Act.”.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 4, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

“(3) Subsection (2) shall not apply in cases where non-compliance with the ground for termination specified in paragraph 2 of the Table to section 34 of the Act of 2004 was previously established and no notice was subsequently issued in respect of that noncompliance before the date of the passing of this Act.”.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 4, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

“(3) Subsection (2) shall not apply in cases where there is a failure by the tenant to pay rent, taxes or charges due if a tenant can supply

evidence of financial hardship, can supply evidence that paying rent would leave them unable to afford other necessities, or can otherwise demonstrate an inability to pay.”.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 5, to delete lines 5 to 9 and substitute the following:

“

”.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 5, to delete lines 14 to 18 and substitute the following:

“

”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 5, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

“(4) Where a tenant has a notice date that falls due prior to the commencement to this Act and the tenant is forced to overhold due to

lack of available emergency accommodation or alternative housing, the Residential Tenancies Board, in the course of mediation or

determination may apply a deferred termination date to the end of the winter emergency period in order to prevent the tenant from becoming homeless.”.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 16 in the names of Senators Boylan, Gavan, Ó Donnghaile, Warfield, Flynn, Higgins, Ruane and Black has been ruled out of order as it is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 17 in the names of Senators Flynn, Higgins, Ruane and Black has been ruled out of order as it is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not agreed. Can I say a few words on this section, please, or am I allowed to?.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of course, the Senator can speak to the section.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want ordinary people to know that I am in support of this Bill but we are all liars if we say that it protects Travellers because it does not. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, being ruled out of order due to the fact-----

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator cannot-----

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, I believe it is unhelpful to refer to Members of the House as liars.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am going to still do it because if I have to be put out of this House today-----

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator did not refer to a particular person.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

----- because it is discrimination and I am going to keep on saying it because it is exactly what it says on the tin.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is unhelpful.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Whether the Senator likes or does not like it, it is exactly what it says on the tin, and it is discrimination towards my community and I will not stand for it. Okay, end of story.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is unhelpful, Chair, to refer to Members as liars in the House.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Oh my God, I will keep at this.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Flynn-----

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A Leas-Chathaoirligh excuse me for a moment but you do not understand what it is like to be in here to represent-----

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can Senator Flynn resume her seat, please, because a point of order has been raised by Senator Fitzpatrick?

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will let the other Members speak but when it is my turn to speak, I will get up and speak.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Senator to resume her seat for a moment, please. I call Senator Fitzpatrick now, please. We will try to continue this debate on a calm level as we are all trying to balance rights here.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, it is not acceptable to call Members liars.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I said we would only be lying if we said it was not discrimination.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Flynn's comments were not directed at an individual.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not acceptable to say that we are only lying.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not how I said it.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not lying in this House and the record needs to reflect that.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is understood. In fairness to Senator Flynn, she used the general term.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is an important point of order, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. This House is not lying and is not passing legislation that discriminates against anybody. That is a fact.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is accepted. I call Senator Flynn to speak and I ask her to stick to the section under discussion, please.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As a member of the Traveller community I believe that not accepting amendments Nos. 16 and 17 is discrimination towards my community.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator has made that point.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just want to make sure to make it again, please. To believe that we are not being discriminatory is being part of the problem. For me, I am not, as I have tried my best to get these amendments put in.

I say to the Minister of State that I am in support of the Bill, 150%, but I am not in support of the three amendments which we submitted on behalf of the Irish Traveller movement and its members which were not accepted. I have lived it, breathed it. We have seen with the trespassing Act, and I can be told that that is not discrimination but it is also discrimination towards my community. Every piece of legislation on policy that we see that does not protect the Traveller community is discrimination towards our community, whether we like it or do not, end of story.

I stress that fact and I welcome that the Minister of State said he would speak to the senior Minister, Deputy Darragh O’Brien, around the protection of Travellers and I thank him for that.

I also say to the Minister of State that the Members of the Civil Engagement Group will be working in our Private Members’ time to bring something forward which will protect Travellers in local authority accommodation. I also want to put that on the record.

I do not mean to cause offence to any Senator in the House, to be fair. During the length of time that I have been here, which is two and half years, and the Senator can nod her head all she wants because she is not a member of the community-----

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Senator to continue as this debate cannot be personalised. We are legislators here.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is a little bit personalised.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. Senator, speak just to the section, please. The Senator has made her point now.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not make my point.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Go ahead so, Senator, please.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I was saying to the Minister of State, I support the Bill and I did not wish to cause offence to anybody but I live and breathe in this community and not to accept those amendments is very disheartening. I do take it personally. Sometimes one has to take it personally when you are the one that is living in it and working with the people on the ground. For many of the Members, for the majority, it is not personal but for me it is. I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I reiterate, and as Senator Fitzpatrick has said, this Bill has been set out to do a specific piece of work, which is to implement a temporary ban on evictions. There is no intention, or any inference otherwise, that it is discriminatory against any particular community. It is a general protection for tenants and tries to strike a balance between tenant and landlord.

I gave a commitment to the Senator on the circular that will be issued to local authorities which, in particular, will recognise the vulnerability, specifically, of the Traveller community.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That represents progress.

Rebecca Moynihan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 3, lines 7 to 11, to delete all words from and including “to” in line 7 down to and including “accommodation” in line 11 and substitute the following: "to make emergency provision to amend the law relating to grounds for termination of certain tenancies, and to defer the termination dates of certain tenancies that fall or would fall during the period beginning on the day after the date of the passing of this Act and ending on 31 March 2023, in order to mitigate the risk that persons whose tenancies would otherwise be terminated would be unable to obtain alternative accommodation".

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Now.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take Fifth Stage?

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Now.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.